Agree, +1 On Thu, Jan 3, 2019 at 10:49 PM Andy Grove <andygrov...@gmail.com> wrote:
> +1 from me. Keeping the code in a single repo makes sense but no need to > artificially keep versions numbers consistent between the sub-crates. > > Andy. > > On Wed, Jan 2, 2019 at 10:28 PM Chao Sun <sunc...@apache.org> wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > This is related to an earlier email I sent regarding separating the Rust > > implementation into sub crates. See some early discussions in this PR > > [1]. As we could have multiple crates for the project in future (e.g., > > arrow, parquet, orc, gandiva), I'm wondering whether we can keep > different > > versions for these crates. For instance, the parquet crate use to have > > version 0.4.2 before merging into arrow, and I think it's better to > > maintain the continuity there. > > > > Another thing is about release cycles. I understand that it is best to > keep > > the release cycles for these crates the same as arrow's. However, it's > > possible in future that we may need a minor release for a critical bug > fix > > of a particular crate, and to follow the overall release process for that > > seems like an overkill and not quite feasible. > > > > Therefore, I'm proposing to: > > 1. allow different versions for sub-crates. > > 2. follow the overall release schedule, but maintain the flexibility of > > doing separate releases when necessary. > > > > Thought? > > > > Chao > > > > [1]: https://github.com/apache/arrow/pull/3291#issuecomment-450950275 > > >
